Paul Ryan's Libya Response

Wow. I wonder what Ryan had to say after 3,000 people died on US SOIL during the last administration's watch?

“It is very important that a president speak with a singular voice representing our principles and our values,” Ryan said.

“If you show weakness, if you show moral equivocation, then foreign policy adventerusim among our adversaries will increase.” He promised that a Romney administration would lead with “peace through strength”.

"We do not want a world climate where our adversaires are so tempted to test us and our allies our worried about trusting us," he added. "And that is unfortunately the path we are on right now and I really worry about that."

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Romney didn't "lie" in his initial statement MR. You may not agree with what he said, and you (and your friends in the MSM like the opinion piece by CNN) may not like the timing of his statement, but that does not mean he "lied" about anything.

As heron points out, Romney is running on the GOP stance that we LEAD on foreign affairs and do it with strength. That is a stark contrast to Obama's foreign policy of weakness, apologies, cutting defense spending, and leading from behind because you think America has had too much influence in the world (once again, you may want to read Obama's books).

Attacking the president's record on a weak foreign policy is TOTALLY in play when you are running for President MR. You and your left-wing pals in the Press don't like it because you know Obama is weak and vulnerable on that issue, which is exactly why the Press keeps trying to turn the issue to stories about Romney.
Foreign policy has hit America with a slap across the face wake up call over these past few days. For Romney not to take advantage of that would be political suicide.
Obama ran against Bush's foreign policy because he knew the country was tired of war. He bashed Bush continuously, saying we were a nation that "tortures", etc - even though we still had troops overseas in harms way fighting 2 wars.
I guess that was OK in your eyes that Obama didn't want to "come together" in that moment though.
Obama always gets a pass because he is "good for the country"...........right?

Terrorism : Violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.

You heard it in the news. The WH and Obama said it was a simple impulsive protest kinda like OWS that were using their rights to demonstrate. Just a bunch of kids with too much hormones. Ignore it and they will go back home

While the rest of us knew it was terrorism, because how many protesters carry RPGs? The WH danced around it because they were afraid we citizens would know Obama screwed up on foreign policy. He didn't fool us a bit, but the libs were saying we were lying. The truth really hurts after saying we were lying.

Are you saying we should ignore the threat and it will go away? Isn't that what libs falsely accuse Bush and 9/11? Would it have helped Carter when he tried to free the Iranian hostages? Ignore them and they would free them?

What does having kids to do with the topic? I have two grown kids, 5 grandchildren and two great grands.

You have to recognize and acknowledge your enemies before you can defeat them. If we don't acknowledge that we are at war with radical Islam, then that gives our enemies the edge.
The Obama admin never says "War on terror". They call terrorism "man caused disaster". They don't like to admit that we are at war with radical Islam.
That is weakness, and the terrorists are laughing their butts off at us and our president.

If you really want to protect your kids, don't vote for a person who would rather try and "make nice" and appease our enemies and at the same time betray our allies.
Just a little FYI for ya.

For parents, the best strategy for kids acting up is not to ignore them, but teach them that is unacceptable behavior. There are many ways to do that, from removing privileges to the basic traditional spanking. Ignoring them teaches them that if at first they don't succeed, try, try again.

For terrorists, they want the headlines with body counts. More bodies means more virgins in heaven. Calling them a mob may mean they didn't make enough of a show the first time, so lets plan more mayhem next time.

But who do we attack in retaliation? Maybe this has been touched on before, but when an American embassy was attacked during the Reagan presidency, we could blame Kadafi. Who is in charge in Lybia? What miltary do we go after? McCain has flip flopped on both staying out of Lybia and supporting the Arab Spring.

I'm not saying Obama is handling it well. I'm asking, "how do we handle it?"

We continue the War on Terror by identifying any training facilities and go after any leaders with drones. If in a "friendly" nation like Pakistan, we let them know and that if they don't act, we will. If in any other nation, we assess the situation and try to decide whether to work with the government or do it ourselves. We have made it known that we will go after terrorists wherever they are.

Even in questionable nations like Egypt, it is divided on supporting the US or not. They all like our money and tourists.

Oh just how wonderful that plan would be, heron, if the rest of the world did not condem us for using drones, including our best allies. Or if the the troops that we help to train in the name of democrocy don't go "green on blue" on our soldiers.

The days of traditional battlefields are over.

I do agree that funding is an issue. Though this funding is also based on a Republican stance that it will somehow help to promote a democracy in nations full of people who hate the US.

When Bush helped to promote democracy in Iraq we at least got a somewhat stable government / situation that respects the United States.
When Obama helped to promote democracy, we get the Muslim Brotherhood in power.

Comments are welcome, so long as they are civil. A Facebook account is required. Abuse may result in the commenter being permanently blocked. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any comments at any time.